[Ben Hollerbach]

When we evaluate the quality of a golf hole, where does the significance of a holes fairway bunkering come into play?

If we use Augusta National as a case study of prudent bunkering at the championship level; Only 6 of 14 fairways include a bunker in the driving zone, and only 1 in the last 8 fairways includes a bunker in play. (I'm removing the bunker on the 10th as it does not challenge the drive).

Over the years Augusta has removed fairway bunkers on a number of holes, all of which would seem to provide little strategic benefit if restored today.

Do fairway bunkers play a significant role in a holes design? Are there any examples of arguably great hole that would become pedestrian or bland if the fairway bunkering was removed?

As a counter example; The 2nd and 8th at Augusta. Removing the fairway bunker on each hole would increase the player's opportunity to attack the green in two. Losing the strategic value of the bunker would impact the quality of the hole. But removing the bunker one either hole would not reduce the strategy of the hole to zero, making it bland and without merit. And in both cases, I don't know if arguably either hole is a great hole in its current presentation today.

[Ben Sims]

Ben, I’ll just simply respond with a controversial but worthy idea…


fairway bunkering is more important than green side bunkering.


As much as I love Augusta for a number of reasons, I don’t think it’s a good case study for bunkering for a number of reasons except maybe that their surrounds are mowed at fairway height.


In my opinion, Fairway bunkering is distinctly more effective as a hazard when it comes to “avoidance preference” I would imagine.


Lastly, to answer your question, let’s just go with one of the originals. Isn’t Woking #4 a completely different hole without the fairway bunker? Cheers.

[Tim Martin]

Lastly, to answer your question, let’s just go with one of the originals. Isn’t Woking #4 a completely different hole without the fairway bunker? Cheers.

Ben-Can’t that be said for many holes?

[Ben Hollerbach]

In my opinion, Fairway bunkering is distinctly more effective as a hazard when it comes to “avoidance preference” I would imagine.


Lastly, to answer your question, let’s just go with one of the originals. Isn’t Woking #4 a completely different hole without the fairway bunker? Cheers.

I can understand players from the tee wanting to avoid a bunker and being driven to do so. The visual difference between the sand and grass is hard to ignore.

But if the centerline bunkers at Woking 4 were just converted to grassfilled bunkers, would the hole effectively play any different or worse?

[Ben Sims]

Lastly, to answer your question, let’s just go with one of the originals. Isn’t Woking #4 a completely different hole without the fairway bunker? Cheers.

Ben-Can’t that be said for many holes?

Well yeah. Is that that what he was asking? There are a number of great holes where if fairway bunkering is removed it would make the hole demonstrably worse or more pedestrian.

[Ben Sims]

In my opinion, Fairway bunkering is distinctly more effective as a hazard when it comes to “avoidance preference” I would imagine.


Lastly, to answer your question, let’s just go with one of the originals. Isn’t Woking #4 a completely different hole without the fairway bunker? Cheers.

I can understand players from the tee wanting to avoid a bunker and being driven to do so. The visual difference between the sand and grass is hard to ignore.

But if the centerline bunkers at Woking 4 were just converted to grassfilled bunkers, would the hole effectively play any different or worse?

Hold up. Let’s not change the intent of the debate. Whether a hazard (not water obviously) is sand or rough or scrub or whatever, aren’t we discussing their mere existence and or positioning? I thought that’s what we were talking about.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Sorry if there was some confusion in my intent

I wasn't speaking broadly around the presence of any/all fairway hazards, but specifically of sand bunkers.

Modern statistical analysis has suggested that we as players can overall ignore the presence of fairway bunkers, in lieu of other greater risks. When Doak built Memorial Park he eliminated nearly all fairway bunkers, based on advice from Brooks Koepka that they posed little challenge to the tour player. It seems that in many ways the place of the fairway bunker in today's version of golf is negligible, or at best an imbalanced hazard that is more penal to the below average player.

Thus my question are fairway bunkers significant in a holes design? Is there merit to keep them broadly and if so, what are the best examples that showcase that merit?

[Mark Kiely]

Corey Conners and Viktor Hovland may take issue with Brooks's opinion -- and this thread topic -- after their experiences on the 16th hole at this year's PGA Championship.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I talk about this subject at some length in my article about Visualizing Risk & Reward on the Golf Course.

I think any principals nose bunker is an obvious archetype of meaningful fairway bunkering. Corner of the Dyke is the obvious example with the principals nose preventing the idea shot from being easy, and deacon sime preventing players from just trying to overpower the principals nose. Play to the right side is thus complicated by the OB. I think this hole would be much worse without the fairway bunkering.

Heathery (In) is similar. The hidden bunkers create a sense of danger that simply wouldn't exist if they weren't there. The shot is straight forward, but the target's risk profile is completely changed.

[Ben Sims]

Sorry if there was some confusion in my intent

I wasn't speaking broadly around the presence of any/all fairway hazards, but specifically of sand bunkers.

Modern statistical analysis has suggested that we as players can overall ignore the presence of fairway bunkers, in lieu of other greater risks. When Doak built Memorial Park he eliminated nearly all fairway bunkers, based on advice from Brooks Koepka that they posed little challenge to the tour player. It seems that in many ways the place of the fairway bunker in today's version of golf is negligible, or at best an imbalanced hazard that is more penal to the below average player.

Thus my question are fairway bunkers significant in a holes design? Is there merit to keep them broadly and if so, what are the best examples that showcase that merit?

Okay, got it.


Brooks has some opinions. This is one I think is broadly 1) foolish 2) not in line with the experiences of less than tour players. They separate themselves in many ways but one of the ways that’s most impressive is their ability to get the club face cleanly on the golf ball and the ball launching at a high angle from most any lie. Maybe that’s what he’s talking about.


That said, maybe they aren’t playing the right courses. 


I can tell him unequivocally that as good as he is, if he drives into the right fairway bunker on #13 at Dunbar, his chances of getting on the green took a hit based on the shape of that bunker added to the already bad angle he’s coming from. If he’s in the centerline bunker on #7 at Ballyneal, he’s just turned a birdie hole into a par almost every time. And that’s for him. For us, much worse.


I guess what I’m saying is that perhaps the statistical analysis says ignore them cause our chances of being in them are slim due to wide dispersion with tee shots. But that doesn’t mean that they aren’t impactful.

[Thomas Dai]

Ignoring the course management aspects and associated skills of the architect for the moment then small, deep, high vertical face sand bunkers with steep sides and rear lips are pretty significant as a shot is also a function of the stance, swing path etc. Proper hazards, obstacles best avoided, places to keep away from or suffer accordingly.
If of the wider, flat and shallow sided variety, well is there much point in having them apart from eye candy and nice photographs?
And then there’s maintenance and upkeep time and associated ongoing and renovation/restoration costs, which are usually rather significant.
Atb

[Tim Martin]

Sahara style and centerline bunkers would have the biggest effect on a hole if removed. Flanking bunkers that guard doglegs would probably be next in measurable effect on the way a hole plays. Pine Valley 7 and Baltusrol Lower 17 would be examples of the Sahara style while Streamsong Blue 8 and Fenway 1 would be good centerline examples. I’m a fan of the fairway bunker on the 285 yard short first hole at Fenway as it consumes two thirds of the fairway on the right side at about two hundred forty yards from the tee. It may not challenge everyone but will give pause to a good segment of players. Finally although still effective hazards, distance gains have muted the challenge on many of the subject holes.

[Sean_A]

Sorry if there was some confusion in my intent

I wasn't speaking broadly around the presence of any/all fairway hazards, but specifically of sand bunkers.

Modern statistical analysis has suggested that we as players can overall ignore the presence of fairway bunkers, in lieu of other greater risks. When Doak built Memorial Park he eliminated nearly all fairway bunkers, based on advice from Brooks Koepka that they posed little challenge to the tour player. It seems that in many ways the place of the fairway bunker in today's version of golf is negligible, or at best an imbalanced hazard that is more penal to the below average player.

Thus my question are fairway bunkers significant in a holes design? Is there merit to keep them broadly and if so, what are the best examples that showcase that merit?

I am not convinced using pros for establishing the value of fairway bunkers makes much sense.

Ciao

[Ben Hollerbach]

Sorry if there was some confusion in my intent

I wasn't speaking broadly around the presence of any/all fairway hazards, but specifically of sand bunkers.

Modern statistical analysis has suggested that we as players can overall ignore the presence of fairway bunkers, in lieu of other greater risks. When Doak built Memorial Park he eliminated nearly all fairway bunkers, based on advice from Brooks Koepka that they posed little challenge to the tour player. It seems that in many ways the place of the fairway bunker in today's version of golf is negligible, or at best an imbalanced hazard that is more penal to the below average player.

Thus my question are fairway bunkers significant in a holes design? Is there merit to keep them broadly and if so, what are the best examples that showcase that merit?

I am not convinced using pros for establishing the value of fairway bunkers makes much sense.

Ciao

Augusta National is a course that is applauded for being one that can challenge the best players in the world while at the same time is extremely playable for the average weekend hacker. It is also a course that relies sparsely on bunkering. Memorial Park is a more modern example of a similar thinking in execution. In an interview about the course, Tom Doak spoke about the subject saying "Many bunkers add difficulty for the average player but are superfluous for the Tour player."

If the bunker is difficult for the less skilled player but a less than challenging environment for the highly skilled player, why keep them around? What reason is there to spend time and money building and maintaining fairway bunkers compared to just rough?

[Charlie Goerges]

If the rough presents a greater challenge to the best player than a fairway bunker AND presents a lesser challenge to the average player, what reason is there to spend time and money building and maintaining fairway bunkers compared to rough?

To make the golf more fun and exciting.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Depends how good your land, routing and greens are.

[Ira Fishman]

If memory serves Jaeger shaped one of the most impactful fairway bunkers that I have played: Mid Pines 12.


Ira

[Sean_A]

Sorry if there was some confusion in my intent

I wasn't speaking broadly around the presence of any/all fairway hazards, but specifically of sand bunkers.

Modern statistical analysis has suggested that we as players can overall ignore the presence of fairway bunkers, in lieu of other greater risks. When Doak built Memorial Park he eliminated nearly all fairway bunkers, based on advice from Brooks Koepka that they posed little challenge to the tour player. It seems that in many ways the place of the fairway bunker in today's version of golf is negligible, or at best an imbalanced hazard that is more penal to the below average player.

Thus my question are fairway bunkers significant in a holes design? Is there merit to keep them broadly and if so, what are the best examples that showcase that merit?

I am not convinced using pros for establishing the value of fairway bunkers makes much sense.

Ciao

Augusta National is a course that is applauded for being one that can challenge the best players in the world while at the same time is extremely playable for the average weekend hacker. It is also a course that relies sparsely on bunkering. Memorial Park is a more modern example of a similar thinking in execution. In an interview about the course, Tom Doak spoke about the subject saying "Many bunkers add difficulty for the average player but are superfluous for the Tour player."

If the bunker is difficult for the less skilled player but a less than challenging environment for the highly skilled player, why keep them around? What reason is there to spend time and money building and maintaining fairway bunkers compared to just rough?

While I am not a fan of overbunkering, I don't consider difficulty as an across the board reason to eliminate fairway bunkers. At the very least, if used well, bunkers should provide a varied challenge to compliment humps, hollows, water, trees and sometimes rough. Every bunkerless course I have seen could have benefited from bunkers.

Ciao

[Jeff Schley]

I know in the classic age some designers would build the course without bunkers and see how the holes were played, only to come back later and add them based on that.  I would be curious to know how many times centerline bunkers were installed after the fact. I personally like centerline bunkers or hazards used sparingly as it adds variety and demands execution.

[Cade Cutchen]

The new work Gil Hanse has done at the Olympic Club will be an interesting case study. Previously the course only utilized one fairway bunker (#6). Now there are multiple holes with fairway traps.


It should provide a nice comparison, as nearly every new hole remains very similar to its older counterpart, with one of the few exceptions being the inserted fairway traps.

[Mark_Fine]

The primary reason/purpose for incorporating ANY kind of hazard in a golf course is to add/create interest.  How exciting or interesting for example is a flat wide open driving range?  Not very.  Same goes for a golf hole with no hazards of any kind. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

The new work Gil Hanse has done at the Olympic Club will be an interesting case study. Previously the course only utilized one fairway bunker (#6). Now there are multiple holes with fairway traps.


It should provide a nice comparison, as nearly every new hole remains very similar to its older counterpart, with one of the few exceptions being the inserted fairway traps.

That’s quite interesting. Were there original fairway bunkers that had been removed in a renovation that he has “restored”? Or were the added bunkers part of his own “renovation”?


One of my favourite courses in Ireland is Carlow. It only has one hole with a fairway bunker. Over the years, subsequent committees seem to have added copses of trees at turning points, clearly in an effort to tighten up the holes (in lieu of fairway bunkers). Pretty misguided if you ask me. Would like to get my hands on it.

[Mike_Trenham]

Seems to me there is a different answer on links and parkland courses.

On a links course a small fairway bunker can play very large if the ground runs balls into the bunker as they drain very well and placement seems to become less challenging to keep them relevant for ages.


On parkland type courses so far you have to drain everything away from the bunkers so unless the ground features are bold it’s hard to keep/get the ball moving fast enough for bunkers to play big and we seem unnecessarily hell bent on moving tees and fairway bunkers to maintain difficulty.  It’s getting to be a very expensive and fruitless pursuit but one most seem highly invested in continuing the quest.

[Jeff_Brauer]

A typical par 4 or 5 comprises of about 2 acres of fw, 3 acres of rough, and from 0-0.2 acres of fw bunker, meaning your chance of hitting a fw bunker is about 4% statistically.  How often you miss the fw is dependent on design and individiual game, but is probably almost 50% on your typical course.  If a fw bunker is placed in a really critical location, your chance might double, but it is still small.

[Thomas Dai]

A typical par 4 or 5 comprises of about 2 acres of fw, 3 acres of rough, and from 0-0.2 acres of fw bunker, meaning your chance of hitting a fw bunker is about 4% statistically.

I suspect they might take up more than 4% of the maintenance budget though.
Atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()